this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
431 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19090 readers
2767 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court justice is back to complaining about LGBTQ people in a recent opinion from the court.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is complaining that people who oppose homosexuality were being unfairly branded as bigots, despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case about whether it is legal to exclude potential jurors based on their religion. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Jean Finney, who is lesbian, against her longtime employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, for workplace discrimination and retaliation due to her sexuality. During jury selection for the trial, which Finney won, her lawyer asked the judge to remove three jurors who had expressed beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Finney’s lawyer argued their religious beliefs would bias them against LGBTQ people.

The state of Missouri appealed the decision, arguing that the jury selection process had been discriminatory on religious grounds. An appeals court sided with Finney, ruling the jurors had been eliminated due to their beliefs about homosexuality, not because they were Christians. Missouri appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which declined Tuesday to hear the case.

In a statement, Alito said he agreed with the decision not to hear the lawsuit, but warned he felt the case was a harbinger of greater danger.

The appeals court ruling “exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Alitio wrote, referring to the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized marriage equality.

“Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government,” he said. “The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 91 points 8 months ago

Somehow I doubt Alito would have any qualms about striking atheist jurors from a case involving a Christian pastor.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 72 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Hey, Justice dumbass:

Change "homosexual" to "Catholic," and I bet you can see the problem really fuckin' quickly.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 62 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Or "Italian."

Not very long ago, there wouldn't be a Supreme Court justice with the surname 'Alito.'

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 26 points 8 months ago

Sure but he obviously doesn't care. There's no attempt to be even handed here, he just wants to hurt LGBT people however he can.

[–] LocoOhNo@lemmus.org 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I like the Christian mental gymnastics where someone in drag is a massive social issue, but they give 10% of their paychecks to men that wear a dress on stage that have actually been molesting kids for 2000 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Steve@startrek.website 8 points 8 months ago

Or just read the new testament…

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 51 points 8 months ago

You know, I will give the total douches that marched in Charlottesville one thing- they didn't even try to hide who they were. They marched without masks, yelling racist and bigoted things and didn't expect anyone to consider them anything other than racists and bigots.

And then on the other side you have Alito and so many other bigot Republicans who are happy to be bigots but indignant that they get labeled bigots.

Own your bigotry you cowards.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 50 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The thing is, he's also totally incorrect. They aren't labeled as bigots because they're Christian. They're labeled as bigots because they're homophobic. There's Christians who have no issue at all with gay people. You can't say deeply religious people are being labeled as bigots when there's also deeply religious people who have no issue with it.

I'd love for Alito to argue "okay but if they don't hate gays they aren't real Christians" because it opens a can of worms I'd love to finally open. If someone doesn't count as religious because they aren't a real Christian, a whole lot of religious exceptions disappear.

[–] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

You're right, but he doesn't care about any of that. He doesn't care that some christians are cool with gay people and others aren't. He thinks that all christians have a constitutionally protected right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, and that any governmental action that prevents that discrimination is infringing on a christian's religious freedom.

This is, of course, based on his personal feelings as a Catholic fundamentalist. I wonder if he'd extend the same religious freedoms to somebody who believes their God wants them to discriminate against old white men

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 46 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The case was not about gay marriage, it was discrimination of a protected class. The court said it's fair to dismiss jurors who believe the identity of the protected class is a bad thing. Like dismissing misogynists from a sex discrimination case. Even if they came to their misogyny via religion, it gives them a bias in this case.

Being dismissed for bias doesn't mean they are bad people, either. The defendant's brother couldn't be on the jury because of bias, that doesn't make him a bad person.

Luckily this nonsense is the minority view on the court even in a 6-3 world, since his was a minority dissent.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Being dismissed for bias doesn't mean they are bad people, either.

In general, I agree it doesn't. But in this case, it does.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Both statements that they were dismissed for bias and that they’re bad people are true, but only because they’re linked to the separate true statement of the fact that they’re bigots

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 42 points 8 months ago

Man, if he's bothered by being called a bigot, he's gonna really hate it when he finds out what else people call him.

[–] Drunemeton@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I feel like his comment is just setting the stage for overturning Obergefell v. Hodges. We already know that they want it overturned so this is just groundwork for the day when that happens.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think there's already a federal law enshrining gay marriage, so we're fortunate there at least.

It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to say that law was unconstitutional, but the backlash from doing so would make the backlash from abortion look like a wave in a kiddie pool.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 34 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The sooner his evil heart gives out, the better.

“Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government,” he said. “The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid this admonition is not being heeded by our society.”

You are fucking bigots, full stop. Religion ruins everything.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm not heeding fucking shit from an asshole who defends bigotry. If society doesn't like the tenets of his religion, the problem isn't society, it's his religion.

[–] gloss@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 8 months ago

Calling us bigots while we engage in textbook bigotry is the real bigotry.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

I've lost count of how many reasons there are that show Alito shouldn't be a judge of any sort but this another example.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Dear Sam,

If you believe some people should be treated as less than human, without the rights afforded to all people in this country, you are a bigot. Religion does not justify bigotry.

Please step on something pointy.

Warm regards, Tip

[–] ZooGuru@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Man, what a whiney little bigoty bitch

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Alito has always been the worst justice. He's evil and not lazy like Thomas and Bart.

Here he goes full mask off and basically says "bigots should be able to hide behind Christianity"

Anyone who believes in the same morals as Jesus should be ashamed and angered by this man calling himself Christ like in any way.

"Christian" just means you think Jesus was the Messiah. It does no lt mean the person agrees with him!

This is an incredibly important distinction.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You could tell back in 2022 that Trollito was one very angry man.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

He's always been that way but for some reason he's started to speak openly about it. This is not normal for a SCOTUS justice, they usually keep their opinions to themselves.

[–] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He is part of an unbreakable majority and he knows it. He doesn't care about keeping up appearances because there is literally zero incentive to care.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Unbreakable is disputed by 40,000 different christian belief systems in the U.S. alone. Throw in that not all christians are homophobic and that shrinks.

Ask him if a christian saying all catholics go to hell, and if that person would be considered an unbias jury member trying a catholic and we might get a different answer.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Yep. In true conservative fashion it doesn't hurt until it hurts THEM.

[–] gloss@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

After Scalia died he wanted to cast off the "Scalito" moniker and decided to be more visible. Only problem is that he's just a natural born asshole. Plus conservatives have a super majority on the court and are basically untouchable and that inevitably leads to arrogance.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

He definitely has that "I'm rich and entitled but it's not enough so I'm going to be a dick" energy.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Bigots like Alito shouldn't be managing a McDonald's, let alone have a seat on the supreme court. When will this "I think my religion says I should be a bigot so I have a constitutionally protected right to trample over everyone else's rights" nonsense stop?

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 19 points 8 months ago

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Bigots like Alito would get fired from managing a McDonalds really quickly when it turns out he had a bunch of bigoted hiring and management practices. Which he would.

The minute corporate noticed all of his employees were always white men, he'd be out on his ass.

Because corporate America knows that bigotry (on the non-executive level) is not good for their bottom line. It's not even about empathy. They just know bigots lose them money.

[–] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 15 points 8 months ago

Didn’t Sam get the news? It’s 2024, we’ve moved on as a society.

We’re horrible to trans people now instead.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 15 points 8 months ago

The state of Missouri appealed the decision, arguing that the jury selection process had been discriminatory on religious grounds. An appeals court sided with Finney, ruling the jurors had been eliminated due to their beliefs about homosexuality, not because they were Christians. Missouri appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which declined Tuesday to hear the case.

Constitutional rights, as Alito must surely know, come into conflict all the time, and it is the courts' responsibility to balance one right against another.

Yes, you have a right to your religion and its beliefs, but that right must yield when it infringes on other people's rights. None of this amounts to the courts "labeling someone as a bigot and treating them as such." I can label those people as bigots and treat them as such, because I am not a judge, and "bigot" is not a protected class.

c/SCOTUSJusticesWithPunchableFaces

[–] cmoney@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's a shame abortion wasn't legal when Samuel Altio's mom was pregnant.

[–] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

The TST are a national treasure.

[–] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

The Satanic Temple's Religious Abortion Ritual

holy hell! those people are a riot!! 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"Why am I called a bigot just cause I'm a bigot?! The appropriate term is 'Christian!'"

Christians are terrorists based on a faith that wouldn't have survived to this day without extensive "convert or die" campaigns combined with claiming every fucking tradition they came across as their own.

90s black metal had the right idea, if they get to discriminate we get to burn. Thems the rules.

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 12 points 8 months ago

That last paragraph is hellarious. "I'm just shocked that society isn't heeding my admonition" Is so much a supreme court justice with his head up his own ass. And to top it off his "admonition" is "please don't be mean to these people just because they want to be mean to other people".

[–] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Where is Jury Duty a guaranteed right, Sammy?

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I know that Alito doesn't ever do anything in good faith, but I can see how his argument has validity if made in good faith. I have plenty of Christian friends who absolutely support gay rights because, as a Christian, they feel that their job is to live through Christ and support their fellow Christians. They feel that homosexuality is a sin, but no more of a sin than original sin, so anyone who was ever birthed starts on a level playing field. Anything beyond that, to them, is for God to sort out.

These are the kind of people who believe that you save someone's soul by living as a good person and if someone else wants to emulate that, they can follow Christ in kind. If it takes an invisible sky-man to help these people make good choices, then sure, Christian it up, baby.

So, once again, if the argument were being made in good faith, I could see that Obergefell v Hodges, which boils down to "someone whose bigotry is based on religion is still a bigot," could be misconstrued into "religious people can be treated as bigots." It's a squares and rectangles sorta thing.

So, I think that maybe what Alito is saying is that he's afraid that labeling someone who says, "yeah, I'm a bigot cuz I'm a Christian," as a bigot could accidentally lead to "get that bigot out of here because they're Christian," and then that would lead to a new need for anti-discrimination laws. But, once again, that assumption would require giving Alito far more credit than he deserves.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Not for nothing guy but you know good and well that argument is not being made in good faith, he never makes arguments in good faith, and frankly they're not even being excluded from the jury because they're Christian but because they're exclusively anti-homosexual stance. So I feel like your entire comment was moot.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They feel that homosexuality is a sin, but no more of a sin than original sin,...

This is the problem. This line of reasoning is only a step or two removed from "therefore homosexuality must be stopped." It is not a far leap from one to the next, and fundigelicals do it all the time.

But the main issue that Alito has a problem with is not that the religious will be mistreated because they're Christians—he knows that's a strawman; they've been harping on Christian Persecution™ for decades, yet they remain highly influential and prosperous. No, the problem is that society is fundamentally moving on from his religion, and his particular brand of religion has chosen to die on this hill, rather than adapt with the religious progressives.

He seems to be arguing, without rational warrant, that his religion is a precondition for society, not that religion can be a component of society, and that society will crumble without the superstition he prescribes. He wants us to just assume that his religion is axiomatically true without providing evidence for his presuppositions.

The age of Christians being the dominant force in the US is ending (if we can avoid theocracy/fascism), and people like Alito are doing everything they can to hold onto that position of power.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Oh, I absolutely agree and feel people are way too involved in other people's lives. Like I said numerous times, I don't think Alito does anything in good faith, but there's still something to be learned from what comes out of his shit-filled mouth. Just like the mentally deficient people who say "Jeebus tells me you can't be gay," because they heard someone tell them it's written in a book, there are mentally deficient people who will say, "you can't serve on a court because you take advice from a book."

So, really, the right phrasing of the ruling should say "bigots can't serve on courts that will be swayed by their bigotry," but then Alito would write himself out of a job, so he's gotta frame the laws around his bigoted ass.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

If someone was fired from their job because of their race, and a potential juror on the case expressed their religious belief that the "mixing of races" is a sin (was a very common religious belief many people justified on the basis of their version of Christianity, and a belief many in the country still hold unfortunately), they should be thrown off that jury and rightfully so. This is no different. And don't start with any of this "well they don't think being gay is a sin just acting on it is a sin" nonsense, would be like saying being black isn't a sin, just marrying outside your race or using the same water fountains as other races is a sin.

People who hold bigoted beliefs about their fellow Americans have no place on a jury for a case involving them, especially in a discrimination case, whether they believe their bigotry is rooted in religion or anything else.

The fact that Samuel Alito thinks they do belong on juries in cases like this says everything you need to know about him. He doesn't think gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else, and he believes religious people (specifically his version of Christianity) have a right to use the law to trample the rights of others. Furthermore, he views the denial of the ability to trample other people's rights he doesn't like as some sort of discrimination against himself, in some kind of crazy warped logic.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

More squawking from the illegitimate court.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The Court as a whole did fine on this one, it's Justice Alito being a bigoted old wanker.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

there's a push lately to equate being christian with being a violent right-wing bigot by violent right-wing bigots who want to paint any opposition to their bigotry and violence as some sort of movement against christianity. But the thing is, I'm against violent, bigoted Muslims too. And violent, bigoted Atheists. And violent, bigoted Jews. I haven't met any violent, bigoted Jains but there's no river long enough that doesn't have a bend in it and if I ever met a violent, bigoted Jain I'd be against them too. Bigotry isn't necessary to Christianity and Christianity isn't necessary to bigotry. The question to these jurors was "Can you apply the law as-written to this case" and several people said "My religious beliefs prevent me from applying the law equally to homosexuals, who I believe are an underclass that needs to be punished."

Bet if it was a cop on trial they'd have no problem kicking someone off the jury for their ACAB tattoo, or if they were Mennonites who believe that violence is wrong in all cases.

load more comments
view more: next ›